Page 71 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2161666768697071727374757681 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,420 of 2209
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1401  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't accept your labeling because we both know that liberal to you means, baby-killing, birkenstock wearing, tax and spend, government hand-out, tree hugging liberals.
    In my world, the word liberal is not a four-letter word. However, I find it quite telling that you see it as such.

    And you would not be the first neoconservative to endlessly change the subject in Rovian fashion.
    "Rovian fashion"....whatever that means.

    More excuses. You were wrong. Period. You mischaracterized me and you still cannot admit it.
    Nope, I can smell you a mile away. You subsequent behaviors have only cemented by suspicions about you.

    You laugh because you know its true.
    I laugh because you are funny, because according to you, I am, among other things, a scientist and an oil man, with some vague connection to someone in Colombia.

    Funny stuff indeed.

    I don't laugh because I know you are, in effect, calling me names.
    As said many times before, you would not be the first liberal who doesn't like to be called a liberal. You have plenty of company.

    If I don't accept your definition of liberal and let you know that I don't think I fit that definition, then you should accept that graciously and move on.
    I do accept, and I accept it as wrong.

    You went on for 4 pages to try and prove you're rudeness was right somehow rather than just saying "sorry about that" and moving on.
    Rudeness? I have never been rude to you. The fact that I have an opinion about you, that being you are a liberal, does not constitute rudeness.

    Tin-foil hat wearing liberal, Birkenstock wearing liberal, xenophobe, and constant inferences to other people's opinions as idiotic all come to mind.
    I have ascribed those qualities to *commentary*, not to the person. Big difference.

    Swing and a miss there slugger.

    I would imagine he thought you were a rude a$$hole.
    By this kind of language, I take it you would rather be known as someone who resorts of name calling as opposed to having conversation.

    You can take the low road. It is your reputation that gets dragged through the mud, not mine.

    Marginalized on a friggin' cell phone forum? Puh leaze.
    What difference does that make exactly?

    I travel a lot and don't always have time to post.
    I travel a lot as well. I fail to see how our frequent flier miles have anything to do with what goes on here.

    In addition, I've added you to my ignore list, where I hope to have you return to, so I haven't been reading your drivel and responding until you decided to provoke this round.
    How can I provoke you when you have me on ignore?

    And what is the use of having someone on ignore in the forum?

    If you have a problem with differing opinions, facts, and perspectives, why not just *not respond*?

    Try it.....it doesn't hurt.

    Then why do you continue to do it?
    Kind of hard to "continue" something when you haven't particularly "started it".

    I wish I didn't have a conscious because it is always so much easier to call someone an "*******" than to expend a little bit of brain power to defend one's position or offer something new to the discussion.
    Again, making charges without demonstration.

    But it is also clear you're not nearly as interested in substantive discussion as you are being rude, insulting, arrogant, pompous, condescending....
    Blah blah blah.....

    Stick to the topic please.

    And by "liberal" we know that you mean it in the most negative of ways, not in a Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson kind of way.
    I think it is safe to say Franklin or Jefferson would be horrified if they have seen what their "liberalism" has turned into.

    Another mischaracterization.
    Another evasion.

    I don't deify the man.
    Perhaps you do not, many on this forum do. You have not been particularly shy about your admiration for the man.

    Wrong. Covered above. You do it. Constantly.
    You keep saying that, yet you have not as yet cited examples.

    The funny part is that you think so much of yourself that you actually believe you have marginalized me on this forum....
    No sir, I have not marginalized you. You have marginalized yourself.

    I like this forum because I can discuss things that I cannot with my employees and yet have learned much from others with different opinions. You're not on that list because you add ZERO value to this forum.
    Precisely because I have my opinions that do not coincide with that of the circle-jerk you belong to.

    This seems to offend you (and a couple others in your group), but this is typical. That much vaunted liberal notion of "acceptance" only applies if you "accept" the party-line.

    Oh I understand exactly what you are calling me. You're calling me a name.
    If I was interested in "pulling a you" and calling you names, I would certainly come up with something a little more creative than "liberal"......and probably use a few different languages in the process.

    Again, very telling that you considering the word "liberal" name-calling.

    So I'll keep calling you names.
    I expect nothing less from you. It seems to be the one thing you excel at.

    Let the record show though it was YOU that called names first on this forum on your very first post
    The first and only time.....and the name used was quite tame compared to other choice words used by you and your clique.

    and it was YOU that called me names by calling me a name I don't like
    I am sorry. "Liberal" is not a derisive word. If it is, in your mind, then perhaps there is some serious trauma you need to deal with?

    (given your definition of it) and it was YOU that had to post flame baited nonsense in a thread I started about Turkey and it was YOU that just had to bring me up again and insult me even when I was trying to avoid discussion with you.
    No one forced you to take me off ignore, unless, of course, you were being "tortured".

    You're a troll and until you can learn to act like an adult I don't care to discuss much of anything with you.
    That is, until the next time you are held hostage until you take me off ignore....again.
  2. #1402  
    Interesting study. While the rise of oceanic plankton production of dimethyl sulfoxide in response to increased sunlight was previously touted as a natural protective effect towards countering greenhouse gas induced global warming, its now apparent that its effects are minimal compared to the effects of rising CO2.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nature Geoscience
    Published online: 18 October 2007
    Oceanography: Cloud control
    Alex Thompson

    Increased emissions of dimethyl sulphide by phytoplankton in a warmer world won't slow global warming.

    The production of a sulphur-containing compound by microscopic ocean plants will not slow global warming as once thought, new research shows. Dimethyl sulphide (DMS) is produced by oceanic phytoplankton roughly in proportion to the amount of sunlight they receive. But by acting as a seed for cloud formation, DMS can slow its own formation and can also cool the climate.

    Sergio Vallina from the Institut de Ciencies del Mar de Barcelona in Spain and colleagues1 used two different models of DMS production incorporating ocean circulation to study future global emissions of the sulphide gas. They found that a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 resulted in a 1.2% annual increase in DMS production, but that the cooling effect of the DMS was minimal relative to the warming caused by CO2. However, the models predicted large seasonal changes in DMS emissions — 10–20 times more in summer compared with winter — indicating that DMS regulates summertime sunlight over the ocean.

    These findings suggest that although DMS production may have a considerable effect on seasonal cloud production, it does not show a significant trend over longer timescales, such as would be needed to counterbalance the warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO2.

    Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16004–16009 (2007)
  3. #1403  
    A timely article from this month in the journal Nature. It provides data which suggests that water vapor increase and its consequent effects on climate change can be directly linked to human activity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nature 449, 710-712 (11 October 2007)
    Letter

    Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence

    Water vapour is the most important contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is expected to increase under conditions of greenhouse-gas-induced warming, leading to a significant feedback on anthropogenic climate change. Theoretical and modelling studies predict that relative humidity will remain approximately constant at the global scale as the climate warms, leading to an increase in specific humidity. Although significant increases in surface specific humidity have been identified in several regions, and on the global scale in non-homogenized data, it has not been shown whether these changes are due to natural or human influences on climate. Here we use a new quality-controlled and homogenized gridded observational data set of surface humidity, with output from a coupled climate model, to identify and explore the causes of changes in surface specific humidity over the late twentieth century. We identify a significant global-scale increase in surface specific humidity that is attributable mainly to human influence. Specific humidity is found to have increased in response to rising temperatures, with relative humidity remaining approximately constant. These changes may have important implications, because atmospheric humidity is a key variable in determining the geographical distribution and maximum intensity of precipitation, the potential maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, and human heat stress16, and has important effects on the biosphere and surface hydrology.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06207.html
  4. #1404  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    In my world, the word liberal is not a four-letter word. However, I find it quite telling that you see it as such.
    Yes, telling indeed. I've explained why I find it offensive and yet you still continue with your moronic brow beating.

    "Rovian fashion"....whatever that means.
    You know what it means. You probably have a Rove blow-up doll you're groping right now.

    Nope, I can smell you a mile away. You subsequent behaviors have only cemented by suspicions about you.
    Again, you drew first blood and continue to insist that your boorish behavior is somehow justifiable.

    I laugh because you are funny, because according to you, I am, among other things, a scientist and an oil man, with some vague connection to someone in Colombia.

    Funny stuff indeed.
    Indeed it is. You couldn't get hired anywhere else so you had to go work at Ecopetrol. If it weren't so tragic it would be hilarious.

    As said many times before, you would not be the first liberal who doesn't like to be called a liberal. You have plenty of company.
    I've explained this enough already. You use the term as liberal to be divisive and throw anyone to the left of you (which is about 95% of the population of the planet) in one bucket.

    Rudeness? I have never been rude to you. The fact that I have an opinion about you, that being you are a liberal, does not constitute rudeness.
    It does if I think you're wrong and attempted to correct your incorrect assertions. You call it a label - I call it a derogatory name used in the context you use it. It is name calling. Period.

    I have ascribed those qualities to *commentary*, not to the person. Big difference.
    In your opinion, because in your dillusional world you think your "commentary" is funny and well received and generally accepted as civilized discourse. Most that have been on the receiving end of your self-ascribed "commentary" think you're a bull in a china shop spewing hate-filled rhetoric and distorting others political leanings to make whatever-the-heck your point and purpose is on this forum.

    By this kind of language, I take it you would rather be known as someone who resorts of name calling as opposed to having conversation.

    You can take the low road. It is your reputation that gets dragged through the mud, not mine.
    Sometimes to slaughter a pig you need to get in the mud and drag him out before slaughtering him.

    What difference does that make exactly?

    I travel a lot as well. I fail to see how our frequent flier miles have anything to do with what goes on here.
    It means I was unable to read and respond to the forum for the most part and have been trying to ignore you - until someone pointed out your latest unprovoked attack.

    How can I provoke you when you have me on ignore?
    "I really have to question this woman's intelligence, and those of Shortie and Modboy who support her...gojeda"

    This is provoking. Not only did you mischaracterize my position on Pelosi but you questioned my intelligence. I've had nothing to say to you the last few days and yet you had to go out of your way to pull me back in.

    And what is the use of having someone on ignore in the forum?
    Again, someone pointed out to me your comment above. I'm trying to just ignore you since you're incapable of any semblence of discourse without resorting to insults and defining someone as something they are not. You're a little little man with a narrow view of the world.

    If you have a problem with differing opinions, facts, and perspectives, why not just *not respond*?

    Try it.....it doesn't hurt.
    You have the nerve to tell me how to post on this forum? I'll tell you what - I will if you will. But since you decided to drop the gloves your very first post on this forum and ever since, I doubt you can ever manage a normal conversation.

    Kind of hard to "continue" something when you haven't particularly "started it".
    I've started two threads recently that you've added ZERO value to because you had to resort to rheotoric and chiding about "liberals".

    I think it is safe to say Franklin or Jefferson would be horrified if they have seen what their "liberalism" has turned into.
    You don't get much more liberal than starting a revolution in the name of liberty. But you can dream about how much you think they'd respect right-wing neoconservatives like yourself all you want. Back then gyus like you were called "loyalist", so I'm certain that Jefferson would find you as repulsive as I do. Nonetheless, it wasn't even my point but you had to spin...yet again.

    Another evasion.
    How so?

    Perhaps you do not, many on this forum do. You have not been particularly shy about your admiration for the man.
    I think I made it pretty clear where I stand. It doesn't matter because whatever I say you just say moronic things like, "...but let it show that you did not have a problem being associated with Pelosi..." to twist and miscontrue my position and opinion of the man.

    No sir, I have not marginalized you. You have marginalized yourself.
    You say that as though you think your opinion is respected up here. LOL

    You really do think a lot of yourself, don't you? Amazing.

    Precisely because I have my opinions that do not coincide with that of the circle-jerk you belong to.

    This seems to offend you (and a couple others in your group), but this is typical. That much vaunted liberal notion of "acceptance" only applies if you "accept" the party-line.
    Your opinions are welcome, as long as they don't include condescending responses and mischaracterizations and name calling of those that oppose your views. I hate rhetoric and you seem to be full of it - feel free to prove me wrong.

    If I was interested in "pulling a you" and calling you names, I would certainly come up with something a little more creative than "liberal"......and probably use a few different languages in the process.
    Wow. Impressive. That must mean you're soooo much smarter than me, huh? LOL

    Pompous beyond belief.

    Again, very telling that you considering the word "liberal" name-calling.
    Equally telling that you continue to mischaracterize others and redefine them when their views don't align with yours. Some might say, myopic and intolerant.

    I expect nothing less from you. It seems to be the one thing you excel at.

    The first and only time.....and the name used was quite tame compared to other choice words used by you and your clique.
    The first post is all it took. You dropped the gloves and came in swinging, thus starting your storied career as a troll here on treocentral.com

    I am sorry. "Liberal" is not a derisive word. If it is, in your mind, then perhaps there is some serious trauma you need to deal with?
    Ahh, the backhanded apology...nicely done. I didn't expect anything less really because clearly you are never wrong about anything.

    Again, you used the term "liberal" in a derisive context EVERY TIME YOU POST so why would I consider it anything less than name calling when you do it to me?

    No one forced you to take me off ignore, unless, of course, you were being "tortured".
    No. I just don't mind standing up to bullies. I'd rather go back to ignoring you if you could ever shut the f$ck up but you continue to spew more non-sensical $hit and humor yourself in doing so. The mark of a true troll.

    That is, until the next time you are held hostage until you take me off ignore....again.
    Well assuming this is it, consider yourself ignored. But if you invoke my name again for no apparent reason other than to insult me then you can expect I'll keep counter-attacking.

    Feel free to contribute something of substance on this forum any day now. We're all still waiting.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/28/2007 at 02:23 PM.
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1405  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Yes, telling indeed. I've explained why I find it offensive and yet you still continue with your moronic brow beating.
    Your explanation doesn't make sense, to be honest.

    You know what it means. You probably have a Rove blow-up doll you're groping right now.
    How did you know?!?!

    Again, you drew first blood and continue to insist that your boorish behavior is somehow justifiable.
    Like I said, you must have sort of trauma related to the word "liberal".

    Indeed it is. You couldn't get hired anywhere else so you had to go work at Ecopetrol. If it weren't so tragic it would be hilarious.
    LOL!! Wait....I thought I was a scientist?

    I've explained this enough already. You use the term as liberal to be divisive and throw anyone to the left of you (which is about 95% of the population of the planet) in one bucket.
    I use the term liberal to describe you because that is what you are.

    It does if I think you're wrong and attempted to correct your incorrect assertions. You call it a label - I call it a derogatory name used in the context you use it. It is name calling. Period.
    "Context"? Is that the excuse you use to spread your hateful rhetoric?

    In your opinion, because in your dillusional world you think your commentary is funny and well received and generally accepted as civilized discourse.
    And it is. The only ones who seem to have a problem are you and Shortie - and it is not a coincidence that you two sound like you are reading from the same playbook.

    Sometimes to slaughter a pig you need to get in the mud and drag him out before slaughtering him.
    Quite the poor excuse for bad behavior....tsk tsk.

    "I really have to question this woman's intelligence, and those of Shortie and Modboy who support her...gojeda"

    This is provoking. Not only did you mischaracterize my position on Pelosi but you questioned my intelligence. I've had nothing to say to you the last few days and yet you had to go out of your way to pull me back in.
    I didn't question your intelligence. I questioned your intelligence insofar as your support for Pelosi (or Murtha, or Reid).

    Again, someone pointed out to me your comment above. I'm trying to just ignore you
    ..and again, no one forced you to un-ignore me.

    And remember, just because you have me on ignore does not absolve you of criticism. I can still see your comments, since I don't come on the forum to ignore people. I address your comments, when needed, irregardless of if you see them or not.

    since you're incapable of any semblence of discourse without resorting to insults and defining someone as something they are not. You're a little little man with a narrow view of the world.
    You keep saying I am insulting you, yet no proof.

    I've started two threads recently that you've added ZERO value to because you had to resort to rheotoric and chiding about "liberals".
    Let us take a walk down memory lane.....

    Thread #1 that you started: Turkish Genocide...1915

    Modboy: "I am all for attempting to restore moral authority but it seems to me we have a lot more to do in the present than in the past to achieve that."

    To which I responded:

    gojeda: "The obvious response here is that many do not see any need to "restore moral authority" for the simple reason that it was not "lost" to begin with.

    Surely the fact that Pelosi, of all people, has appointed herself the moral bulwark of the nation will lead to much laughter across the land.

    What is next from the Democratic party? Barney Frank to chair a committee task force on sex crimes? LOL!"


    Seems an appropriate response. And notice, these comments were not even directed AT YOU.

    I questioned a premise of your thread, that regarding our moral authority. You did not like that. You do not like dissenting opinions, and soon after you started your inexorable descent into puerile name-calling. This is proof #1

    Proof #2 comes in your thread about Former General Sanchez "breaking rank"

    Modboy: "I think I suggested we compile a list of the commanders first to determine if there even is a majority. Instead you've jumped right into attack mode. So even if there is a majority you seem more inclined to impugn each and every one of them rather than grant that Sanchez's comments have credence, as you've suggested you would."

    Note the unfounded and quasi-beligerant tone.

    This comment came out of left field since we have both stated, and agreed, that the man had an axe to grind.

    ....but then again, you had also said in this exchange that maybe Sanchez had a point.

    In other words, you were waffling.......again.

    My response:

    gojeda: "I am not attacking anyone. I am questioning their sudden vocalness. Based on their histories that I cited above, I believe there is ample reason to question their motives.

    As opposed to those, like yourself, who seem to automatically believe that Sanchez's words are some sort of indictment of the war or of the leadership?

    The point was made before, and it seems it has to be made again. Commanders getting relieved, then speaking out disfavoring military conflicts they were involved in, is nothing new.


    Again, an appropriate well-rounded response, with citation of past wars to support my position.



    You don't get much more liberal than starting a revolution in the name of liberty.
    The liberal of the late 18th century would start a revolution to free oneself from some sort of tyranny. The liberal of today is interested in starting a revolution to ram their views down other people's throats under the thin veil of "acceptance".

    That, in a nutshell, is what today's liberalism has become. Quite different from the Founding Father's liberalism.

    But you can dream about how much you think they'd respect right-wing neoconservatives like yourself all you want. Back then gyus like you were called "loyalist", so I'm certain that Jefferson would find you as repulsive as I do. Nonetheless, it wasn't even my point but you had to spin...yet again.
    I would be more concerned, to be honest, of what Lincoln would think about today's conservatism.

    I think I made it pretty clear where I stand. It doesn't matter because whatever I say you just say moronic things like, "...but let it show that you did not have a problem being associated with Pelosi..." to twist and miscontrue my position and opinion of the man.
    You have yet to reconcile your self-avowed admiration of Murtha with your distaste of Pelosi.

    You say that as though you think your opinion is respected up here. LOL
    No more, or less, respected than the next guy I'd say. I do not fancy myself a great commentator. I am quite humble - and have a lot to be humble about.

    Wow. Impressive. That must mean you're soooo much smarter than me, huh? LOL
    No, it just means that if I were interested in insulting someone, I would just do so.

    Equally telling that you continue to mischaracterize others and redefine them when their views don't align with yours. Some might say, myopic and intolerant.
    I have never said, or have implied, that a liberal is any less of a good person that I am, or the next guy.

    No. I just don't mind standing up to bullies. I'd rather go back to ignoring you if you could ever shut the f$ck up but you continue to spew more non-sensical $hit and humor yourself in doing so. The mark of a true troll.
    LOL! You won't hit the ignore button because I am too juicy of a target for you. LOL!!

    Well assuming this is it, consider yourself ignored. But if you invoke my name again for no apparent reason other than to insult me then you can expect I'll keep counter-attacking.
    Yea.....sure. You are going to sit there ignoring, un-ignoring.....back and forth.

    What-----everrrrrrrrrr

    Feel free to contribute something of substance on this forum any day now. We're all still waiting.
    Accept the occassional difference of opinion. It will help your ulcer.
  6. #1406  
    by repeatedly posting the Schwartz et al. article,

    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Brookhaven National Laboratory peer-reviewed study that questions heat increases from CO2 emissions:
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (Geophysical Research Letters)
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    you seem to be desperately trying to use it to prove your view that humans don't cause global warming.

    Even though the article has been criticized due to its methodology, as shown in another article published in the same journal......
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf .......lets hypothesize that one could draw conclusions from it, who would agree with your conclusion? Certainly not the author of the article himself, Dr. Schwartz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nature Reports Climate Change
    Published online: 27 June 2007
    Stephen E. Schwartz et al.
    "The century-long lifetime of atmospheric CO2 and the anticipated future decline in atmospheric aerosols mean that greenhouse gases will inevitably emerge as the dominant forcing of climate change, and in the absence of a draconian reduction in emissions, this forcing will be large. Such dominance can be seen, for example, in estimates from the third IPCC report of projected total forcing in 2100 for various emissions scenarios2 as shown at the bottom of Fig. 1. Depending on which future emissions scenario prevails, the projected forcing is 4 to 9 W m-2. This is comparable to forcings estimated for major climatic shifts, such as that for the end of the last ice age3. Developing effective strategies, both to limit emissions of CO2 and to adapt to the inevitable changes in global climate will depend on climate sensitivity."
    http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0...e.2007.22.html
  7. #1407  
    Thanks cell for posting something related to the topic of the thread.

    moderateinny I have reported you. I have been trying to follow this discussion and you constant back an forth with gojeda has polluted this thread long enough.

    You're a troll and until you can learn to act like an adult I don't care to discuss much of anything with you. I have a feeling that other than your little cabal of blind followers I am not alone in my sentiments about you.
    Extremely ironic that YOU choose this phrase when you have repeatedly used dollars signs in the last few pages to circumvent the profanity filter to call gojeda names and make infantile comments about his anatomy. Regardless of your opinion on GL or your political leanings, you have proven you are prone to ad hominem attacks.

    Mods please keep the thread open as there is good discussion here if one can get past all the $$ in the words in moderateinny's posts.
  8. #1408  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Your explanation doesn't make sense, to be honest.
    Sure it does. You just cannot admit you were wrong.

    Like I said, you must have sort of trauma related to the word "liberal".
    You know why I resent the label. Nuff' said.

    I use the term liberal to describe you because that is what you are.
    It is what you call me, but it is not what I am.

    Shall we continue with this silly "I know you are but what am I" game?

    Name calling again. Tsk tsk.

    "Context"? Is that the excuse you use to spread your hateful rhetoric?
    Here come martyr-boy again....care to cite examples? snivel snivel.

    And it is. The only ones who seem to have a problem are you and Shortie - and it is not a coincidence that you two sound like you are reading from the same playbook.
    Funny, I think his opinions and mine are often more different than alike. We just know how to disagree with one another without resorting to the distortions, insults, and lies that you do.

    I didn't question your intelligence. I questioned your intelligence insofar as your support for Pelosi (or Murtha, or Reid).
    I guess I have to question yours then since you clearly cannot read. I've criticized both Pelosi and Reid. And my position on Murtha is quite clear and I won't repeat it simply because your hate-filled eyes don't care to read it carefully.

    And remember, just because you have me on ignore does not absolve you of criticism. I can still see your comments, since I don't come on the forum to ignore people. I address your comments, when needed, irregardless of if you see them or not.
    What comment did you specifically address when you questioned my intelligence and mischaracterized my feelings about Pelosi?

    You're criticism was misguided.

    You keep saying I am insulting you, yet no proof.
    What crack-pipe are you smoking? You just did in post 1391 in this thread. Wow. You are a daffy neoconservative.

    Let us take a walk down memory lane.....
    Yes, lets.

    Thread #1 that you started: Turkish Genocide...1915

    Modboy: "I am all for attempting to restore moral authority but it seems to me we have a lot more to do in the present than in the past to achieve that."

    To which I responded:

    gojeda: "The obvious response here is that many do not see any need to "restore moral authority" for the simple reason that it was not "lost" to begin with.

    Surely the fact that Pelosi, of all people, has appointed herself the moral bulwark of the nation will lead to much laughter across the land.

    What is next from the Democratic party? Barney Frank to chair a committee task force on sex crimes? LOL!"


    Seems an appropriate response. And notice, these comments were not even directed AT YOU.
    I am certain the Barney Frank comment was meant to add substance to your "balanced" response. You were being a smart-a$$ and just had to insert some rhetoric to get a rise out of me.

    I questioned a premise of your thread, that regarding our moral authority. You did not like that. You do not like dissenting opinions, and soon after you started your inexorable descent into puerile name-calling. This is proof #1

    Proof #2 comes in your thread about Former General Sanchez "breaking rank"

    Modboy: "I think I suggested we compile a list of the commanders first to determine if there even is a majority. Instead you've jumped right into attack mode. So even if there is a majority you seem more inclined to impugn each and every one of them rather than grant that Sanchez's comments have credence, as you've suggested you would."

    Note the unfounded and quasi-beligerant tone.

    This comment came out of left field since we have both stated, and agreed, that the man had an axe to grind.

    ....but then again, you had also said in this exchange that maybe Sanchez had a point.

    In other words, you were waffling.......again.
    It is too nuanced for you to understand I guess...so call it waffling. I acknowledged he may have an axe to grind but also maintain that because his voice is not a lone voice of oppostition from ex-Generals I think his comments may have merit.

    My response:

    gojeda: "I am not attacking anyone. I am questioning their sudden vocalness. Based on their histories that I cited above, I believe there is ample reason to question their motives.

    As opposed to those, like yourself, who seem to automatically believe that Sanchez's words are some sort of indictment of the war or of the leadership?

    The point was made before, and it seems it has to be made again. Commanders getting relieved, then speaking out disfavoring military conflicts they were involved in, is nothing new.


    Again, an appropriate well-rounded response, with citation of past wars to support my position.
    You've completely quoted out of context - surprise surprise. http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=154141 Perhaps you should re-read the thread before playing the victim again (which you're becoming quite good at).

    The liberal of the late 18th century would start a revolution to free oneself from some sort of tyranny.
    Like the tyranny of neoconservatives, or as they called them back then, loyalist?

    The liberal of today is interested in starting a revolution to ram their views down other people's throats under the thin veil of "acceptance".

    That, in a nutshell, is what today's liberalism has become. Quite different from the Founding Father's liberalism.
    You're really reaching now. So the founding fathers didn't ram their views down other people's throats? They fought and died to instill their views and created a separate state (or the United States) to protect those views.

    I would be more concerned, to be honest, of what Lincoln would think about today's conservatism.
    We might agree on that. Altough I'm certain from very different vantage points.

    You have yet to reconcile your self-avowed admiration of Murtha with your distaste of Pelosi.
    Do you have friggin' oil in your eyes or something? I've already responded to your ludicrous claims that I am in love with Jack Murtha. Other than my respect for him as a veteran and outspoken critic of the war, please post all of my other posts whereby I admire Murtha. Have at it.

    No, it just means that if I were interested in insulting someone, I would just do so.
    And you do. At nauseum. Every post. Every thread.

    I have never said, or have implied, that a liberal is any less of a good person that I am, or the next guy.
    OMFG - that is rich.

    LOL! You won't hit the ignore button because I am too juicy of a target for you. LOL!!

    Yea.....sure. You are going to sit there ignoring, un-ignoring.....back and forth.

    What-----everrrrrrrrrr
    You're still on ignore boy genius. I have been clicking the "view post" link to see what igorant rants you'd post next. I haven't been paying attention to you until your little Pelosi/Murtha mischaracterization and insulting my intelligence.

    Accept the occassional difference of opinion. It will help your ulcer.
    I don't have an ulcer. And I have low blood pressure and despite what my on-line persona appears to be, are considered quite calm, cool and collected by those that know me. It's one of the many reasons why I was picked for sniper school (that and a battery of test to determine my abilitity to compartmentalize things). Of course, it is possible that in my old age I've lost my patience with young bucks like yourself. I suppose I can be cranky from time to time...but I digress.

    Nevertheless, thanks for the advice. I think I'll just get back to ignoring you if you can shut the he|l up.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1409  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    by repeatedly posting the Schwartz et al. article,
    you seem to be desperately trying to use it to prove your view that humans don't cause global warming.
    It is worth remembering at this time, as the record of the thread shows, that I can cited three different studies as seen in post #1249.

    For a more detailed outline of those three studies, I refer you to post #1258.

    Even though the article has been criticized due to its methodology, as shown in another article published in the same journal......
    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf .......lets hypothesize that one could draw conclusions from it, who would agree with your conclusion? Certainly not the author of the article himself, Dr. Schwartz.

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0...e.2007.22.html
    You mean their commentary?

    Fine, let us highlight some of this they said that you neglected to mention above.

    The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses the skill of climate models by their ability to reproduce warming over the twentieth century, but in doing so may give a false sense of their predictive capability.

    The new report estimates total anthropogenic forcing to be 0.6 to 2.4 W m-2 (595% confidence range). This factor of four range greatly limits the ability to evaluate the skill of climate models in reproducing past temperature changes and to infer climate sensitivity from observed change because a given temperature increase might result from a large forcing and low climate sensitivity or alternatively from a small forcing and high climate sensitivity.

    As it stands, the narrow range of modelled temperatures gives a false sense of the certainty that has been achieved. A much more realistic assessment of present understanding would be gained by testing the models over the full range of forcings given in Fig. 1. Additionally, the predictive ability of the models could be confidently assessed by subjecting them to the same forcing profile over the twentieth century and comparing the modelled temperature changes.

    Developing effective strategies, both to limit emissions of CO2 and to adapt to the inevitable changes in global climate will depend on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of forcing anticipated in 2100 thus highlights the urgency of reducing uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity.
  10. #1410  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Thanks cell for posting something related to the topic of the thread.

    moderateinny I have reported you. I have been trying to follow this discussion and you constant back an forth with gojeda has polluted this thread long enough.
    Do you mean defending myself against his unprovoked attack on me in post 1391? Did you report that too?

    I'm all for discussion but he simply won't hear of it.
  11. #1411  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Do you mean defending myself against his unprovoked attack on me in post 1391? Did you report that too?

    I'm all for discussion but he simply won't hear of it.
    You are both petty provocative. A little sense of proportionality would be nice. Your dispute is trivial and you are both embarrasing yourselves in the court of public opinion. Gojeda is showing off his wit and Moderteinny is engaged a really tough game of "NowIvegotyouyousob." I wonder if either of you can resist the bait of the other for three days?
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/28/2007 at 06:54 PM.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1412  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Funny, I think his opinions and mine are often more different than alike. We just know how to disagree with one another without resorting to the distortions, insults, and lies that you do.
    Indeed....instead of insulting each other, you insult me. LOL!

    I guess I have to question yours then since you clearly cannot read. I've criticized both Pelosi and Reid. And my position on Murtha is quite clear and I won't repeat it simply because your hate-filled eyes don't care to read it carefully.
    Funny, I don't recall you criticisizing Reid.

    What crack-pipe are you smoking? You just did in post 1391 in this thread. Wow. You are a daffy neoconservative.
    The record shows that what I said there is that you have "a lot of pent-up hate".

    I don't see any name calling there.

    By the way, good job of polluting the thread with that FEMA article.


    Yes, lets.

    I am certain the Barney Frank comment was meant to add substance to your "balanced" response. You were being a smart-a$$ and just had to insert some rhetoric to get a rise out of me.
    The Barney Frank comment was to illustrate the absurdity that Pelosi's party is going to charge itself with "restoring the moral authority" of the country.

    By the way, it is worth repeating that my comments there were mostly about Pelosi and the democratic party.

    For someone you do not like, you sure came to her defense very quickly when I started laying into her.

    This is what I mean when I say you are "unconvincing".

    It is too nuanced for you to understand I guess...so call it waffling. I acknowledged he may have an axe to grind but also maintain that because his voice is not a lone voice of oppostition from ex-Generals I think his comments may have merit.
    Nuanced is a pretty word for waffling in this case, sorry.

    You've completely quoted out of context - surprise surprise. http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=154141 Perhaps you should re-read the thread before playing the victim again (which you're becoming quite good at).
    No I didn't. I quoted you verbatim, and I quoted my response verbatim.

    Like the tyranny of neoconservatives, or as they called them back then, loyalist?
    The conservative of today has almost nothing in common with the conservatives of late 1700s, just like your liberal of today has almost nothing in common with his predecessor of that time.

    You're really reaching now. So the founding fathers didn't ram their views down other people's throats?
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Sorry....I don't see demagoguery here.

    They fought and died to instill their views and created a separate state (or the United States) to protect those views.
    Yes...and?

    We might agree on that. Altough I'm certain from very different vantage points.

    Do you have friggin' oil in your eyes or something? I've already responded to your ludicrous claims that I am in love with Jack Murtha.
    Waffling and hyperbole is a poor defense. I never used the word love.

    Other than my respect for him as a veteran and outspoken critic of the war, please post all of my other posts whereby I admire Murtha. Have at it.
    My question to you, which you seem to have a great deal of difficulty answering, is how can you have respect for Murtha but dislike Pelosi, considering they are, politically and idealogically, joined at the hip?

    You're still on ignore boy genius. I have been clicking the "view post" link to see what igorant rants you'd post next.
    Waffling yet AGAIN! LOL!!

    Nevertheless, thanks for the advice. I think I'll just get back to ignoring you if you can shut the he|l up.
    The ignore function is not contingent on whether I shut up or not.

    By the way, I will stop here and get back on-topic. You can have the last word you so desperately need.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/28/2007 at 03:55 PM.
  13. #1413  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Do you mean defending myself against his unprovoked attack on me in post 1391? Did you report that too?

    I'm all for discussion but he simply won't hear of it.
    Couple old cliches for you.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    beating a dead horse.

    You look rather foolish dragging this on and on and on, just to be "right". We get that you disagree and feel that you have been attacked. You can stop now ok. I am sure gojeda gets it too. Take the high road, agree to disagree and just shut up about it.
  14. #1414  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Couple old cliches for you.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    beating a dead horse.

    You look rather foolish dragging this on and on and on, just to be "right". We get that you disagree and feel that you have been attacked. You can stop now ok. I am sure gojeda gets it too. Take the high road, agree to disagree and just shut up about it.
    Sage advice. He's back on ignore.
  15. #1415  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    You are both pretty provocative. A little sense of proportionality would be nice. Your dispute is trivial and you are both embarrasing yourselves in the court of public opinion. Gojeda is showing off his wit and Moderteinny is engaged a really tough game of "NowIvegotyouyousob." I wonder if either of you can resist the bait of the other for three days?
    Again, sage advise. He's more than welcome to ignore me as I've tried to do to him the last few days.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1416  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    You are both pretty provocative. A little sense of proportionality would be nice. Your dispute is trivial and you are both embarrasing yourselves in the court of public opinion. Gojeda is showing off his wit and Moderteinny is engaged a really tough game of "NowIvegotyouyousob." I wonder if either of you can resist the bait of the other for three days?
    I think if a person avails himself of posting an inscrutable article about some faked FEMA press conference (in the name of prosaic partisanship) into a thread about global warming merits a response - irregardless of who is ignored, or not.

    I, for one, do not come to a forum to ignore people. Wasn't it Sun-Tzu who said, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"?
  17. #1417  
    A recent article of interest from the MIT Technology Review.

    Measuring the Polar Meltdown
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19504/
    This explains how the best models predicting the melting of glacier ice are incomplete and unreliable - and so we should be more worried.
    "We have to acknowledge that we don't have reliable ways to predict what ice sheets will do, but that they will certainly react much more strongly to climate warming in the future," he says. "There is no reason to alarm people that the end of the world is coming. But there is no reason to reassure them, either, that there is nothing to worry about with the ice sheets."
  18. #1418  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I think if a person avails himself of posting an inscrutable article about some faked FEMA press conference (in the name of prosaic partisanship) into a thread about global warming merits a response - irregardless of who is ignored, or not.
    One little problem gojeda....I DIDN'T POST THE FEMA ARTICLE!!!!

    Nicely done.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1419  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    One little problem gojeda....I DIDN'T POST THE FEMA ARTICLE!!!!

    Nicely done.
    Did I say you did?
  20. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1420  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    A recent article of interest from the MIT Technology Review.

    Measuring the Polar Meltdown
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19504/
    This explains how the best models predicting the melting of glacier ice are incomplete and unreliable - and so we should be more worried.
    Great quote you cited samkim:

    "We have to acknowledge that we don't have reliable ways to predict what ice sheets will do, but that they will certainly react much more strongly to climate warming in the future," he says. "There is no reason to alarm people that the end of the world is coming. But there is no reason to reassure them, either, that there is nothing to worry about with the ice sheets."

    BINGO - we have a winner.

Posting Permissions